PROTECT

/ COMPLAINTS AND INFORMATION GOVERNANCE
Town Hall, Darlington DL1 5QT
Tel: (01325) 388905
DX 69280 Darlington 6
Web site:
Mr Ian White
E-mail to: / Date:
Please ask for :
Direct Line:
Your Reference:
Our Reference:
Document Name: / 10 February 2014
Jenni Gamble
(01325) 388043
-
DBC-2525-13
FOI/DBC-2525-13

Dear Mr White

Freedom of Information Act 2000 - Information Request

Your request for information, received 13 January 2014, has now been considered. Your request is outlined below with our responses added alongside.

A, How many FoIA requests did you have in the following years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013?
This information is included in the Freedom of Information, Environmental Information and Subject Access Request Report, which is published annually by the Complaints and Information Governance Team. The report can be found on our website at:

As this information is already reasonably accessible to you, it is exempt from disclosure under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. A full refusal notice is appended to this letter.

B, How many (by year) were answered over the statutory 40 day time limit?

Again, this information is published annually in the Freedom of Information, Environmental Information and Subject Access Request Report; please refer to the response to question 1.
C, How many Subject Access Requests (SAR) requests did you have in the following years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013?
Again, this information is published annually in the Freedom of Information, Environmental Information and Subject Access Request Report; please refer to the response to question 1.

D, How many were answered within the statuatory time frame?
Again, this information is published annually in the Freedom of Information, Environmental Information and Subject Access Request Report; please refer to the response to question 1.

E, Have you had any complaints to the ICO about late response times? If so how many per year per request FoI and SAR?

There has been one complaint to the ICO that specifically cited a late response as a grounds for complaint. This was in relation to a subject access request and was made in the 2012-13 financial year (1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013).

F, Have the ICO sent you any subsequent correspondance on handling late complaints and if so please may I have copies of all such letters etc sent to DBC from the ICO in regard to NOT adhering to ANY part of either the FoIA or SAR and its respective lagislation? To include all ICO warnings etc.
Section

Yes, please refer to the attached documents. You will note that some of the data has been redacted. This information is personal data as defined by the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA) and we believe that its disclosure would be in breach the data protection principles set out therein. The redacted information has, therefore, been removed under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. A full refusal notice is appended to this letter.

G, How many ICO complaints have DBC had in total regardless of reason, broken down intot he above years?

2010/11 = 2

2011/12 = 2

2012/13 = 2

Please note that these complaints also relate to other areas of alleged non-compliance with the legislation concerned, not just the request-handling elements. For this reason, the numbers reported here differ from those reported in the annual reports (the annual reports relate solely to request-handling).

If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request or would like to request an internal review of our response, please write to:

Freedom of Information Officer

Darlington Borough Council

Resources Group

Town Hall

Darlington

DL15QT

E-mail:

You can also obtain further information from the Information Commissioner at:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Tel:01625 545 700
Website:

Enquiries:

Yours sincerely

Freedom of Information Officer

Encs

Refusal Notice – Section 21(1) Freedom of Information Act 2000

Section 21of the Freedom of Information 2000 provides that:

“(1)Information which is reasonably accessible to the applicant otherwise than under section 1 is exempt information.

(2)For the purposes of subsection (1)—

(a)information may be reasonably accessible to the applicant even though it is accessible only on payment…”

The information you have requested is published in the annual reports at

As a result, we believe that the information is already reasonably accessible to you.

This exemption is not subject to the public interest test.

You have the right to request an internal review of our decision to apply this exemption; details of how to do this are provided in the letter that accompanies this refusal notice.

Refusal Notice – Section 40(2) Freedom of Information Act 2000

Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 provides that:

“(2) Any information to which a request for information relates is also exempt information if—

(a) it constitutes personal data which do not fall within subsection (1), and

(b) either the first or the second condition below is satisfied.

(3) The first condition is—

(a) in a case where the information falls within any of paragraphs (a) to (d) of the definition of “data” in section 1(1) of the [1998 c. 29.] Data Protection Act 1998, that the disclosure of the information to a member of the public otherwise than under this Act would contravene—

(i) any of the data protection principles, or…”

Is the information ‘personal data’?

Section 1(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA) states:

““personal data” means data which relate to a living individual who can be identified –

(a) from those data, or

(b) from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller,

and includes any expression of opinion about the individual and any indication of the intentions of the data controller or any other person in respect of the individual”

It is clear that the information requested relates to living individuals, i.e. members of the public who have made complaints to the Information Commissioner in relation to the handling of a request that they have made to the Council, and that those individuals can be identified from the information requested and other information in the possession of the data controller (i.e. Darlington Borough Council). This is because the redacted information directly identifies those individuals. Accordingly, we believe that the information does constitute personal data.

Would disclosure breach any of the data protection principles?

The second test under section 40(2) is whether the disclosure of the information would breach any of the data protection principles. The first data protection principle states:

“Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be processed unless –

(a) at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 is met, and

(b) in the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the conditions in Schedule 3 is also met.”

In this context, ‘processing’ is construed broadly and includes disclosure of the information requested. As the information withheld meets the definition of personal data, it can only be disclosed if to do so would be both fair and lawful, and in accordance with the conditions in Schedule 2. Schedule 3 is not applicable because the redacted data is not ‘sensitive personal data’ as defined by the DPA.

We began by considering the Schedules because, if we are unable to meet the conditions contained therein, disclosure would be in breach of the first principle and it would not be necessary to go on to consider whether it would otherwise be fair or lawful.

The only Schedule 2 condition that is relevant in this case is condition 6, which states:

“The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject.”

We are, therefore, required to balance your interest in having access to the information against the individuals’ right to privacy. Having considered the redacted information, we have concluded that removal of the personal data will not detract from your understanding of the letters. Providing redacted copies meets the Council’s objectives of being open and transparent without infringing the privacy interests of those affected.

For this reason, we are refusing to supply the personal data from the letters under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

This exemption is not subject to the public interest test.

You have the right to appeal against our decision to apply this exemption. Details of how to do this are contained within the letter that accompanies this refusal notice.

PROTECT

Page 1 of 6